Trial Help! Please....

[Icon699]

I am taking a paralegal course in Ontario, Canada we are now taking Tort Law. We have been assigned a case to represent either for or against. Below is the case and I have to represent the plaintiff. We cannot add any information, only use the facts given below. Does anyone have any suggestions. It's only 39 paragraphs but it's over 10000 chrs so I had to attach it to four separate posts. I think it's a lost cause! Help!

Indexed as:
Presley v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Between
Elvis Aaron Presley, plaintiff, and
Corporal Doug Reti and the Attorney General of Canada

[1998] Y.J. No. 139
Whitehorse Registry No. 95-A0138

Yukon Territory Supreme Court
Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
Beaulieu J.

Judgment: filed December 2, 1998.
(20 pp.)
Libel and slander — The statement — What constitutes defamatory statements — Defences — Qualified privilege — When available — Public duty.
This was an action by the plaintiff, Presley, against the defendants, RCMP and Reti, for defamation. The action stemmed from a report filed by Reti in connection with an incident between Presley and his neighbour. Presley was sitting in a chair close to the property line, facing his neighbour's house. The neighbour, with whom he had at one time been involved in a common-law relationship, found his behaviour threatening. She approached him with a camera to take pictures and document his behaviour, and he threatened to kill her if she came on his property. The neighbour then contacted the RCMP, and Presley was arrested for uttering threats and stalking. Presley agreed to give statements to Reti. His statements contained references to his encounters with aliens and flying saucers, his visions of Elvis Presley, and his persecution by the RCMP, CIA and US police forces. Reti then prepared a confidential report of his investigation for Crown Counsel, which recommended that Presley undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Presley claimed that the statements in the report were defamatory.
HELD: Action dismissed. Without determining whether the statements contained in Reti's confidential report to Crown counsel constituted publication and were defamatory, the communications in the report were nonetheless protected by qualified privilege. Reti was under a legal duty to produce a report and Crown counsel was under a duty to accept it. Although there may have been minor factual or grammatical errors in Reti's report, there was no evidence of malice towards Presley by Reti, or the RCMP, sufficient to deny the communication's protection by qualified privilege. Presley's constant references to aliens, flying saucers, persecution, and whether he was Elvis Presley made it entirely reasonable for Reti to advise the Crown of the possible need for a psychiatric evaluation. None of the information contained in the report was made public, and at trial, the only portion referred to was with respect to Presley's utterance of a threat towards his neighbour. Presley himself was responsible for any publicity surrounding his story, as a result of his numerous interviews with the media.
Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
Criminal Code, ss. 264.1, 507(1).
Counsel:
Elvis Presley was unrepresented.
Bruce Willis, Q.C., for the defendants.

1 BEAULIEU J.: — This is an action for defamation arising out the police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution of the plaintiff for uttering threats contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Crown Brief prepared by the police contained statements, which were defamatory.
2 The plaintiff is Elvis Aaron Presley, also known as Tagish Elvis. Prior to registering a Certificate of Change of Name on March 18, 1997, the plaintiff was known as Gilbert Nelles. Each of these names will be used to identify the plaintiff as the context requires.
3 The first defendant is Corporal Douglas Reti. Corporal Reti was at all material times a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) and was assigned to the detachment at Carcross, Yukon. Carcross is a community approximately 60 km southeast of Whitehorse. The second defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, is apparently named as the employer of Corporal Reti. The parties did not take issue with the naming of the Attorney General as a defendant and I therefore express no opinion on the matter.
4 The Amended Statement of Claim dated December 6, 1995, contains seven allegations and prayer for relief. The Statement of Claim, as filed and unedited, is setout below:
1. That the defendants did maliciciosly [sic], with intent, and breach of law did defame the plaintiff.
2. The defendants did defame the plaintiff by recogmending [sic] to Crown council [sic] plaintiff should have phsyciatric [sic] assessment.
3. The defendants did defame the plaintiff by stating to Crown council [sic] that police are aware that Nelles is of the delusion he was abducted by aliens.
4. The defendants did defame, or create the illusion to Crown council [sic] the plaintiff was of a pharanoic [sic] state of mind by decietfully [sic] saying the F.B.I. and CIA and R.C.M.P. in the United States are after the plaintiff.
5. The defendants did defame the plaintiff by altering statements made on arresting tape, at time of incarceration, by stating the plaintiff threatened to kill his neighbour if she came on to her own property. These altered statements were written on report to Crown council [sic], creating the illusion the plaintiff was premeditating to murder his neihbour [sic].
6. The defendants did defame the plaintiff by stating on report to Crown council [sic] that. Nelles was taken before Justice Janet Raushant [sic] were it was intended to release him on the condition to abstain from communication or contact with Lisson. During release procedures Nelles made it very clear he understood the conditions but was not willing to abide by them. And (respondent stated to Crown council [sic] petitioner refused to abide by release conditions made with Justice of Peace Janet Rushant of Carcross. This statement is a falsehood as petitioner agreed with some of the conditions but was adverse to others and stated his concerns on the tape made with the Justice of the Peace.
7. That the defendants did maliciously with intent did defame the plaintiff by the presentation, of fabricated evidence, altered statements of fact, and context materials was reported on report to Crown counsel.
8. The plaintiff asks the court to award the plaintiff an order that the plaintiff receive damages for defamation of character by the defendants for:
a. The sum of ten million dollars
b. A public apology
c. Legal costs
d. and any other awards the Court deems fair and just.
5 The trial of this action occurred over three days in March 1998. The plaintiff represented himself and from the outset was adamant that he neither needed nor wanted legal representation. Throughout the conduct of the trial tremendous latitude was extended to Mr. Presley in presenting his case. I intervened in the conduct of the trial far more than would normally be the case. This included explaining the law and, on a number of occasions, explaining what type of evidence would or would not assist Mr. Presley's case. Throughout the trial the rules of evidence were interpreted with great flexibility. Extensive portions of examination for discovery transcripts were read-in to the record. I also permitted Mr. Presley to raise issues more appropriate for a judicial review or appellate forum than a civil trial for defamation. I should also note that Counsel for the defendants demonstrated considerable good will in allowing Mr. Presley every opportunity to present his case. This included arranging for the attendance of witnesses the defence would not otherwise call. When Mr. Presley protested his inability to call those witnesses himself, the court explained that his would allow him the obvious advantage of being able to cross-examine those witnesses. While Mr. Presley will undoubtedly quarrel with some of my rulings during the trial, I trust that he recognizes that every effort was made to ensure that he was heard.
6 In light of the tremendous importance Mr. Presley placed on these proceedings, I have reflected a great deal on the issues raised and evidence presented. In addition to my notes, I have reviewed several hundred pages of transcripts. I have thoroughly canvassed each of the over 20 exhibits filed. This includes transcripts and reasons for judgment in two other court proceedings as well as a number of newspaper articles, a video tape containing a story done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the program Focus North, a tourism-related production entitled Cruising the Inside Passage, a very brief promotional spot by the Yukon Film Commission, and a lengthy program entitled Alien Autopsy which was originally broadcast on an American television station (Exhibit 3). At the outset, the defendants conceded there was no issue taken with the alleged existence and life force of extra-terrestrial bodies and aliens, thereby obviating the issue of attempts to introduce almost five hundred further documents that had been prepared by the plaintiff.
7 In the final analysis whether the film on alien autopsies and related matters are authentic or the most fantastic technical productions in history would only be remotely relevant, if at all, to the specific allegations of defamation in this particular case.
Factual Background

 

[Icon699]

Continued

8 The events that precipitated this proceeding occurred on May 21 and the early morning of May 22, 1995. Mr. Presley's neighbour at the time was Cynthia Lisson. Both lived in the community of Tagish, approximately 110 km south of Whitehorse. Apparently Mr. Presley and Ms. Lisson had once had a common-law relationship. Mr. Presley is firmly convinced that Ms. Lisson stole certain documents from him around the time their relationship ended. He repeated those accusations a number of times to various individuals. I hasten to add that no criminal conviction has ever been entered in this regard.
9 Between their properties for a distance of approximately half the length of the lots is a wooden fence. On May 21, 1995, Mr. Presley was sitting in a chair, near the property line between the two homes and beyond the fence, facing Ms. Lisson's house. Ms. Lisson apparently found this behaviour disquieting. There is some suggestion, though it was not seriously argued before me and I make no finding in this regard, that Mr. Presley has said or done things in the past to cause Ms. Lisson some concern. Ms. Lisson proceeded to take photographs of what Mr. Presley was doing so as to document her concerns. At this point there are a number of versions of precisely what transpired. What is clear is that Ms. Lisson was on her property. The evidence is that as Ms. Lisson approached taking photographs, Mr. Presley threatened to kill her. The precise phrasing of the threat, Mr. Presley's demeanour and whether he made any other threats, are all in dispute. Be that as it may, Mr. Presley has admitted many times to making some sort of statement or comment containing a phrase like "I'll kill you". In the police station later that evening Mr. Presley stated that his exact words were "without prejudice, if you come on my property, I'm going to kill you". Mr. Presley has stated a number of times that what he meant by this statement was something like "get lost" or "stay off my property". He emphatically denies that he ever meant he would actually kill Ms. Lisson.
10 As a result of speaking these words to Ms. Lisson, Ms. Lisson contacted the R.C.M.P. in Carcross. The defendant Corporal Reti responded to the call and proceeded to investigate the incident. According to his report on the incident, he spoke with both Ms. Lisson and another witness, Orvin Chippet. Corporal Reti then spoke with Mr. Presley and Mr. Presley was ultimately arrested for uttering threats and stalking.
11 After being advised of his constitutional rights, Mr. Presley consented to giving statements. There is no suggestion that these statements were in any way coerced. Both statements were audio taped. The first interview/statement began at 23:06 on May 21st. It deals with Mr. Presley's interpretation of Ms. Lisson's general conduct towards him and his version of the events that transpired that afternoon.
12 The second interview/statement began at 1:09 am on May 22nd. According to the transcript, and this was not disputed, it was Mr. Presley who requested the opportunity to make a supplementary statement. After Mr. Presley made his statement and Corporal Reti asked questions or provided information as required, Corporal Reti asked, "Okay, can you tell me how you became Elvis? Just for the record". Mr. Presley then proceeded to relate two stories involving aliens and flying saucers. After the first encounter with a flying saucer, Mr. Presley states that upon his return home he had a "vision" of Elvis Presley. Sometime later he began to dress like Elvis Presley and sing songs traditionally associated with Elvis Presley.
13 Between these two statements, at approximately 23:45 on May 21st, Mr. Presley was brought before a Justice of the Peace. It was explained to Mr. Presley that he could be released upon an undertaking to report to the police station for fingerprinting on July 6, 1995, to attend court the same day, and to abstain from any direct or indirect communication or contact with Cynthia Lisson. Mr. Presley refused to sign the undertaking.
14 On May 22, 1995, Corporal Reti prepared his report to Crown counsel in relation to the charge against Mr. Presley (only the uttering threats charge was pursued). As part of his report, Corporal Reti completed a pre-printed form entitled Report to Crown Counsel. One section of the form, a small section on the right hand side, says "psychiatric exam required" with two boxes to check-off either yes or no. Corporal Reti struck-out "required" and wrote "recommended" and checked-off the yes box.
15 At the top of page two of Corporal Reti's report on the events of May 21, 1995, the following sentence appears: "Police are aware that Nelles is of the delusion that he was abducted by aliens and is of the belief he is Elvis Presley". At the bottom of the third page of the report, Corporal Reti writes that: "During dealings with Nelles he advised that the CIA, RCMP and police forces in the United States are after him. That people attempt to beat him for what he believes in".
The Law
16 In Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. (1995), 126 D.L.R. (4th) 609 (S.C.C.) ("Botiuk"), the Supreme Court of Canada offered the following general description of the law of defamation at pp. 622-623:
…a publication which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is defamatory and will attract liability [citations omitted].
17 Applying this general test to the facts at bar, there may well have been a publication in the narrow and technical sense of the word. A report, containing the allegedly defamatory statements, did pass between Corporal Reti and Crown counsel. Accordingly, I am prepared for the purposes of this case to assume that the plaintiff has demonstrated publication. I note, however, that the defendants are not responsible for any publication in the sense of making the statements publicly available. Of all the statements complained of, only the plaintiff's threat to Ms. Lisson, for which there was a criminal conviction in a proceeding where Mr. Presley was represented by counsel, was disclosed in court and thus available to the public. The evidence indicates that public knowledge of the other statements is directly attributable to the active efforts of the plaintiff to speak with the media.
18 The second issue is whether the statements complained of will tend to lower Mr. Presley in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. This issue was not argued before me. Again, for the purposes of this proceeding, I am content to assume that statements regarding flying saucers, aliens, and being chased by the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies could lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. I note the irony, however, in the fact that Mr. Presley is complaining of being defamed yet at the same time is the only person to have contacted the media to actively and widely spread public knowledge of his purported encounters with flying saucers and aliens etc. On another occasion it may well be the subject of some argument as to whether a person can be defamed by statements that that person believes to be true and has himself or herself publicized.
19 The principal legal argument of the defendants is that Corporal Reti's actions are protected by qualified privilege. Granting the assumptions of publication and defamatory content, the question becomes whether the defence of qualified privilege is available in the circumstances of this case. In Botiuk the Supreme Court of Canada described the nature of qualified privileged at page 626:
Qualified privilege attaches to the occasion upon which the communication is made, and not to the communication itself. It was explained in this way by Lord Atkinson in Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.) at p. 334:
... a privileged occasion is ... an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential.
The Court continued:
Where an occasion is shown to be privileged, the bona fides of the defendant is presumed and the defendant is free to publish remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff. However, the privilege is not absolute. It may be defeated in two ways. The first arises if the dominant motive for publishing is actual or express malice. Malice is commonly understood as ill will toward someone, but it also relates to any indirect motive that conflicts with the sense of duty created by the occasion. Malice may be established by showing that the defendant either knew that he was not telling the truth, or was reckless in that regard.
Second, qualified privilege may be defeated if the limits of the duty or interest have been exceeded. In other words, if the information communicated was not reasonably appropriate to the legitimate purposes of the occasion, the qualified privilege will be defeated.
Analysis

 

[Icon699]

20 Despite the significant time and effort devoted to this case by both parties, and the considerable volume of documentary evidence and testimony, as an action for defamation this case is quite straightforward. Applying the test outlined in Botiuk, in my view there can be no doubt that the preparation by the police of a report regarding a criminal charge and the receiving of that report by Crown counsel is a textbook example of qualified privilege. It is the very essence of a police officer's function to investigate crimes. It is the very essence of Crown counsel's function to prosecute criminal offences. Indeed, this separation of functions is among the corner stones of our criminal justice system. As a result, it is necessary for the police to write reports detailing their investigations and present them to Crown counsel. It is equally necessary for the police to provide the Crown with details of the surrounding circumstances. This is particularly true with regard to the mental capacity of the accused as under our system of laws it is considered unjust to convict an individual of a criminal offence and endure the resulting stigma without the Crown proving the necessary criminal intent and the capacity to form such intent.
21 Accordingly, I find that there was a legal duty on Corporal Reti to produce a report and on Crown counsel to receive the report. I also find that the information communicated was reasonably appropriate to the legitimate purposes of the occasion. As such, the plaintiff cannot succeed in his action absent evidence of malice, defined as ill will, dishonesty or recklessness, on the part of the police that would destroy the qualified privilege.
22 I can find no indication, let alone evidence, of malice.
23 It is not the function of this Court to pass judgment on the existence of aliens, flying saucers, or whether the plaintiff Mr. Presley is indeed the world famous rock and roll singer Elvis Presley. Some people may so believe, others do not. Nonetheless, Mr. Presley's frequent and fervent reference to these topics, in combination with solid evidence of uttering a death threat and two rather disjointed statements to the police, make it entirely reasonable for Corporal Reti to alert Crown counsel to the possible need for a psychiatric evaluation. I am also of the view that, even assuming that the recommendation was negligent, there is absolutely no evidence of the type of recklessness or disregard for the truth as would defeat a defence of qualified privilege in these circumstances.
24 Turning to the plaintiff's other allegations, in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim he alleges that the statement that the plaintiff was abducted by aliens, found at page 2 of Corporal Reti's report, is defamatory. Based on the available record, it is possible that Corporal Reti was mistaken on this point. Perhaps more likely, it is possible that Corporal Reti's sources of information on this point may have been mistaken. The plaintiff denies ever having made such a statement. Assuming, without deciding, that Corporal Reti was in error on this point, there is no indication that the error was malicious. In the context of a plaintiff who frequently and volubly avows to having seen flying saucers, believes in aliens, and claims to have been "zapped" by a light from a flying saucer, I have no difficulty in concluding that any mistake on Corporal Reti's part was entirely honest and understandable given the circumstances.
25 With regard to paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, Corporal Reti testified in an honest and entirely credible manner that it was during the car ride from the plaintiff's residence to the police station that the plaintiff stated he was being sought by the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies. The plaintiff has provided me with no basis upon which to doubt Corporal Reti's testimony. I also note that the sentence of the report following the one about the F.B.I. is that "people attempt to beat him for what he believes in". This would seem generally consistent with the plaintiff's statement at page 19 of the interview transcript that:
...So I started singing all these songs, so then everybody tried to beat me up every day from down the street, so I finally put gasoline in both pockets, like lighter fluid, and I says the next person that beats me up for getting up in the morning and singing a song, I gonna ha, ha, ha set them on fire hey...
26 Thus, I find that the plaintiff probably did make the statement about the F.B.I. being after him. Even if Corporal Reti was in error, there is no indication of malice or recklessness. Read as a whole, it is clear that Corporal Reti made a considerable effort to ensure the accuracy of his report to Crown counsel. This mistake, if indeed a mistake was made, does not materially alter the tone or character of the report.
27 With regard to paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, considerable court time was expended on the plaintiff's allegation that the tape of his two interviews was altered and approximately 10 minutes of material deleted. The purported evidence of this is Mr. Presley's claim that the time synchronization is off. At the beginning and end of each interview or segment of an interview Corporal Reti would state the time. The plaintiff claims that if the tape is played and the segments timed with a watch, the time as recorded on the watch will be less than the time Corporal Reti indicates has passed on the tape. Thus the plaintiff claims segments were deleted. This timing exercise was attempted on three separate occasions during the trial. In all cases the time differential, as measured by all timers except the plaintiff, was relatively small -- about three minutes. The plaintiff consistently claimed a differential of 10 minutes. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that the time differential is small and easily explained by the fact that Corporal Reti's time indications on the tape do not include seconds. When Corporal Reti says 23:06 on the tape, it could have been 23:06:01 or 23:06:59. I find this fact capable of explaining the small three minute differential in time synchronization. In contrast, the plaintiff's version of events, that under the cover of medical treatment for a knee injury Corporal Reti flew to Vancouver to have the tape altered, is decidedly implausible. Particularly so in light of the defendants' documentary evidence from a knee surgeon in Vancouver that Corporal Reti had in fact been in Vancouver for medical care.
28 A related allegation in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim seems to be that the interview transcript where Mr. Presley admits to uttering some type of threat has been falsified. This suggestion must be rejected. First, there is no evidence of the tape or transcript being altered. Second, both Ms. Lisson and Orvin Chippet complained of some threat. This is why the police became involved in the first place. Third, Mr. Presley pled guilty to the criminal charge of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm. Counsel for Mr. Presley in that proceeding accepted the Crown's statement to the Court that Mr. Presley said something akin to "If you come onto my property, I will kill you". Fourth, at pages 5-6 of the transcript of the s. 507(1) application before His Honour Judge Heino Lilles the following exchange occurs:
Mr. Presley: And twice, underneath that, I'd say, one, two, three -- four lines down, it says, "Nelles advised that he informed Lisson," and he has the word "is" instead of "if" "she came on her [sic] property that he was going to kill her". Now, that's premeditating murder. That's the way he wrote it to the Crown counsel. And about the third line from the bottom of the first paragraph, again, it says, "Nelles informed he did in fact threaten to kill Lisson. However, it was made in the conjunction with the warning that if she came on her [sic] property, he would kill her". So again, he's stating that I was premeditating that when my neighbour came home, I'd walk over there and kill her. Okay, which is a lie.
The Court: And the true situation is?

Mr. Presley: The true situation is in the tape recordings, a copy of the typed tape recordings that I said that if my neighbour came on my property or trespassed on my property after robbing me and extorting me, that I'd kill her. And it was meant like, "f" off, you know, or hit the road. Okay.
29 In this passage Mr. Presley not only admits to threatening Ms. Lisson, but actually relies on the transcript the accuracy of which he is now impugning.

 

[Icon699]

30 A final allegation in paragraph 5, and technically the only one actually pled, is that in his report to Crown counsel Corporal Reti stated Mr. Presley threatened Ms. Lisson that if Ms. Lisson came on to her property, the plaintiff would kill her. Mr. Presley argues that this phraseology would have suggested to Crown counsel that the plaintiff had a premeditated intent to murder Ms. Lisson. The evidence of Corporal Reti is that the two occurrences of this phraseology in his report are typographical errors. What was intended was the statement that if Ms. Lisson came on to his property, Mr. Presley would kill her. I have absolutely no difficulty in believing Corporal Reti on this point. Any reasonable person reading the entire report, or even the paragraphs in which the errors appears, would have no doubt that the intended phraseology was that if Ms. Lisson came on to his property, Mr. Presley would kill her. The alternative, "that if she came on her property that he was going to kill her" makes no sense given that Ms. Lisson was already on her property. The only relevant property that Ms. Lisson could come on to was that of the plaintiff. It is abundantly clear that in the end no one in fact interpreted the report in the manner suggested by the plaintiff. In the criminal proceedings before Judge Elizabeth Thomas, in which Mr. Presley had legal representation, there was no dispute that the threat was Mr. Presley saying something like "if you come on my property, I'll kill you". Corporal Reti made typographical errors and those errors did not mislead or confuse anyone. There is no evidence that these two typographical errors were malicious.
31 In paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim it is alleged that Corporal Reti defamed the plaintiff by including in the report to Crown counsel the statement that Mr. Presley "made it very clear that he understood the conditions [for his release pending a court appearance] but was not willing to abide by them". The condition named by Corporal Reti is that Mr. Presley "abstain from communication or contact with Lisson". As noted above, there were in fact three conditions attached to releasing Mr. Presley from custody. The plaintiff's position at trial appeared to be that he was only unwilling to abide by some of the conditions and did agree to have no contact with Ms. Lisson subject to some clarifications (questions such as, "what if we meet at the store, would that be a violation of the condition?"). Fortunately for these proceedings, there is a transcript of Mr. Presley's appearance before Justice of the Peace Janet Rushant. A review of that transcript suggests that both versions of events are possible. At page 4, Mr. Presley states that he understands the conditions that he attend to be fingerprinted on July 6, 1995, and that he abstain from contact with Ms. Lisson. The Justice of the Peace then asks if Mr. Presley also understands that he must appear in court on July 6th. Mr. Presley replies, "I understand that's what you would like. But if my time is busy and tied up somewhere else, I might have somebody else represent me in court". Not surprisingly, the Justice of the Peace is not satisfied with this answer. Mr. Presley then makes several statements to the effect he has "committed no crimes" and should be allowed to go about his business. At this point, Mr. Presley arguably threatens the Justice of the Peace. The Justice of the Peace obviously thought so and specifically asks at page 6: "Are you threatening me, Mr. Nelles?" The transcript then contains the following exchange:
R.C.M.P.: Gilbert, so you're declining to abide by these conditions that were laid out?
Mr. Nelles: I understand these conditions, I understand them perfectly. That doesn't mean that I have to accept them what's there, okay.
R.C.M.P.: Okay, on that condition then, you're being kept in custody.
32 The fact that this exchange is in the plural suggests that Mr. Presley objected to all three conditions. His referral to the fact that he committed no crime and has the right to sit on his property and behave as he wishes tends to confirm this interpretation. On the other hand, it is the condition that Mr. Presley appear in court that causes the plaintiff to become particularly obstreperous. Taking the transcript as a whole, I find that Mr. Presley objected to all three conditions. More importantly for the case at bar, I cannot say that Corporal Reti's interpretation is wrong, let alone reckless or malicious.
33 Finally, with regard to paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Statement of Claim, there are no specific factual allegations. Paragraph 1 is a general allegation of malicious defamation. Paragraph 7 refers to unspecified "fabricated evidence" and "altered statements of fact". Having found no merit in the specific allegations argued by the plaintiff, and having heard all the evidence and detected no indication of inappropriate conduct on the part of Corporal Reti, I must dismiss that portion of the plaintiff's claim.
34 The plaintiff chose to withdraw from these proceedings when the court ruled against his last attempt to introduce hearsay evidence. Having been cautioned that his withdrawal in effect determined the extent of his evidence, Mr. Presley boldly announced that I had been dismissed. The defendants' evidence was therefore heard in the absence of the plaintiff.
35 In my deliberations I have been fully cognizant of Mr. Presley's choice to withdraw and his inability to cross-examine the defendants' witnesses and make final submissions. It is my considered view, however, that Mr. Presley's testing of the defendants' evidence and his position on the issues was abundantly clear throughout his own evidence which was continually laced with submissions and argument.
36 While I recognize the depth and strength of Mr. Presley's views, the plaintiff has not established his case on a balance of probabilities.
37 If I am in error regarding liability, then as defamation is actionable per se I find that the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages in the amount of $1.00. I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove any actual damages. Mr. Presley presented no concrete, reliable evidence of any monetary or other form of loss. As discussed above, all of the statements complained of were contained in a confidential report viewed only by Crown counsel. With the exception of the threat against Ms. Lisson, none of the comments were referred to in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Presley. It was Mr. Presley who publicized the entire story. It was Mr. Presley who spoke with reporters and posed for pictures. If anything, Mr. Presley would appear to have induced, and gained from, greater publicity.
38 In the result, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
39 The plaintiff having failed to prove any of his allegations, the defendants will have their costs after assessment.